The Age and the SMH have carried articles by Parsons and Hughes (I think)as has Margo Kingston's web page. Other than these I can find nothing for Austrlalia. Britain has fared better with the media at least running it generally on an inside page and some web sites .e.g. media lens organisation, have carried it. In America it is a little better the bloggers particularly, but some of the press have written of the memorandum. The big question is why. For America one web site gives fear of being branded as unpatriotic etc and not finding future jobs. No excuse has been proposed for Australia. Since it seems likely any challenge will be met with "did not see was not told" hard evidence in black and white is needed to link Austrlia in the kowledgable few. Intutiivally one imagines communication over the period 2001 ,commitment to ANZAS treaty obligations, and 2002 this memorandum and on to 2003. At this site their is a piece indicating that we should have known on the basis of available evidence. True, but this is the smoking gun and the silence indicates firing so long ago we have all moved on! Chasing pedophiles from 1960 +!

The latest Iraq war is very difficult to reconcile. There were signs that the Saddam Government was going to implode, which could have created a civil war in Iraq and cut off oil exports out of the country. That would have had a major impact on the rest of the world.

However the number of lives lost, the type of weaponry used, and the basic confiscation of Iraq’s infrastructure by foreign commercial interests is very difficult to reconcile.

The obvious lies told by the US government regards 9/11 is not so difficult to reconcile, and there are so many holes in the story by the US government regards 9/11 (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00087.htm) it becomes almost impossible to understand why the press has not full investigated even one of those half truths or lies.

9/11 is when the mainstream press really became a puppet.

Hardly Sept 11 the media became the leaders lap dog sometime round Eisenhower and have continued to short change any idea of democracy ( the media informs the citizen votes) ever since. The book 'low intensity warfare' by Klare and Kornbluh 1988 sets this out but there are many others. This is not left wing, unless to be left wing is to disobey and despise those who lie, the right wing position (left wing to were they ruling!).

We the electors have again, for as I said above this is not new (see Quigley ruses for war) been lied to treated as underage incompetents, illinformed, unsuited to vote. All of which judgng by the emotive Corby reaction seems true. But one must ask who benifits who loses? The answer is obvious merely lamposted by the recent salary rise of our leaders. Sure the Americans will come to our aid if we help them same as they did (or were anyone else in a postion to do would) for the UK 1945 or for the UN . Idealism 1944 Morganthau realist politics ever after.

Look at a map of the Middle East, Mesopotamia, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Colour in all the countries with pro-American sympathies and/or governments in blue.

Colour in all those with anti-American views in red.

Colour in strategic routes to the sea-ports and also oil producing nations in the region.

What subterfuge did the NAZI Government resort to as a pretext for the invasion of Poland? Where did the men come from. Did this fool the German people?

What is the difference between Iran and Iraq? One has a Q.

Mark in the conquests of Alexander the Great.